


r1_M0_review

by Isobel (Editor_Isobel)



Series: Reciprocality [1]
Category: M0
Genre: Other, Review
Language: English
Status: In-Progress
Published: 2017-11-23
Updated: 2017-11-26
Packaged: 2019-02-05 23:32:49
Rating: Explicit
Warnings: Graphic Depictions Of Violence, Major Character Death, Rape/Non-Con
Chapters: 2
Words: 5,553
Publisher: archiveofourown.org
Story URL: https://archiveofourown.org/works/12804786
Author URL: https://archiveofourown.org/users/Editor_Isobel/pseuds/Isobel
Summary: ######################################################################### Key:# {this is a translation of the authors (subconscious) thoughts as guessed by the reviewer}# [this is an observation about AGC]########################################################################





	1. M0

**Author's Note:**

  * For [Yakaru](https://archiveofourown.org/gifts?recipient=Yakaru).



> ########################################################################  
> # Key:  
> # {this is a translation of the authors (subconscious) thoughts as guessed by the reviewer}  
> # [this is an observation about AGC]  
> ########################################################################

#  "The Monster" "Stupidity Virus" M0 

The premise of Alan G. Carter's [AGC] magnum opus (forged by the "The Reciprocality Group" [0] ) could be prefaced as:

M0 is a Dawkinsian meme that closes cognitive options, (i.e. it makes you blind to some useful logical conclusions.) [1]

He takes loosely medically sounding data about neurotransmitters and learning-theory and a paradigmatic description of understanding  
and conflates students with ignorance and crams other non-isomorphic qualities into a diagnosis. 

# "Driver" objections  
His poppy example is a 1980's view of drug addiction as pharmacological and not, (as it turns out to be) a sociological one.  
[People take heroin because they are in pain. They become addicted if they are isolated from supportive people.] [2]  
(So first swing-n-a-miss). Its only an analogy but already indicates a lack of wisdom about how the human (brain) works.

He lauds boredom and seems oblivious to the fact that boredom is one of the factors that encourages addiction.  
"excess dopamine can be produced by simply continuing to do nothing interesting!"  
If you want to spike your dopamine level: take cocaine or amphetamine. Now bored are you now? [3] Without dopamine we would be in a coma. [4]

"Therefore a human that is kept in a bored state for long enough to rebalance its brain chemistry will become hooked on its own dopamine and be able to feed its own habit by simply boring itself!" No AGC was observing either stupid people or those (normal people) that haven't been trained to be able to work like maniacs. AGC is the one with the unusual brain chemistry. Everyone else is simply "infected" with a greater interest in going out and socialising rather than writing code or arguing braces vs whitespace. Yes AGC may have a greater capacity for analysis, but he also has a greater capacity for neurosis, depression and over-thinking-things-until-you-convince-yourself-of-a-false-conclusion. Observing untrained minds as having "lost faculties" is Post hoc ergo propter hoc for something that was never lost - it was never trained.

Procrastination isn't an illness it is the result of one or more of:

1\. A Fear of Failure  
2\. Excessive Perfectionism  
3\. Low Energy Levels  
4\. A Lack of Focus

(Not some mythical thought infection.) If you teach people to do the 5 Tibetan Rites each time they want to procrastinate,  
it will quickly improve all of these. https://youtu.be/TJElLrpBetc 

# "Vector" objections: {extroverts suck because they aren't me.}

" time consuming ritualism for no useful purpose in courts, legislatures etc, " This is the classic egocentric solipsistic trap of, "everything would be more efficient if everything happened the way I think it should." (Which is really, "It would be more efficient for my brain if I didn't have to think and could presume that everyone thought just like me." )

We need to separate, "functional social lubricant" ritual and "lost children dancing in the dark". As a secular human it might seem odd for the English parliament to hold Christian prayers before the start of a session, (to which those of other religions are excluded.) It acts as a mental gear-change and highlights, 

i. England is NOT a secular country.  
ii. How ever powerful you think you are, you ARE accountable and imagining someone on high might help you with that.  
iii. The metaphorical gravity of the following session is highlighted.

Another example of "function social lubricant" ritual would be, phrases such as, "Pleased to meet you." I have no idea if I'm pleased to meet you! I may come to regret it. It is an aspirational phrase, ("I hope that this meeting will be to our mutual benefit." suffers from inflexibility and is far to much commitment. "Pleased to meet you" is deliberately couched in the past and does not contractually bind either party to any future endeavour. 

"lost children dancing in the dark" are those that feel any pressure to participate in tribal events such as "football matches", (or complain about peer pressure), or those that perform ritual in the delusion that it has a greater meaning outside of their own actions, (e.g. Monks of the 9th century believing that if they ceased their prayers it would be to the detriment of the souls of the general population of Europe.)

Courtroom etiquette serves the purpose of highlighting the rarefied space. You could hold a rave in a cathedral, but it would be unkind to the old lady mourning her recently dead husband, (we will avoid the tangent of dance as therapy for grief.) 

"ritual addicted hosts" um, why invent a term for them when we already have the term "extroverts"?  
"bizarre phenomenon that we cannot prove the existence of, but are forced to conclude must exist." victim style wording coupled with verbal hand-waving is weak at best and dangerous at worst. e.g. "I can't prove that if you let me kill you with this magical knife you will have a special after-life but now that I've stabbed you in the heart I am forced to that conclusion."

" blown by the winds of the dopamine economy" um, that's called fashion. (Many people enjoy novelty and combine that with a conflicting desire for acceptance and self-expression we end up with fashion - only very loosely related to dopamine.)

We see the continuation of the "other" being defined, (as having the M0 infection) but this is the first time we have the "us" defined. The excellent and infections construction of which is open and includes "desirable and admired" types - classic cult: "Hackers, mystics, "knower's of quality", star diagnosticians, creative types: [ artists, authors], "ADHD" (If you are, or would like to be one of "those" then you are part of "us". Welcome! You belong and you aren't broken. You simply lack the M0 infection! Hallelujah 

<N.B.> He "supports" his argument with a section called "Exploitation of Feedback in Cognition" which is circular conjecture leveraging a priori logic combined with a sense of being "superior" and a lament for the infected. </N.B.>

# "Boom" objections: {or "why do people keep asking me to go to the pub?" "ugh! Corporate structure is soo slow - I can work faster on my own." }  
<NTS> AGC clearly can't even conceive of people that go to football matches because they enjoy them. </NTS>

{understanding of something requires the exploitation of feedback in cognition. Since M0 hosts cannot exploit feedback in cognition, this is something they do not do. Therefore there is no word in English for doing it. However, there are plenty of ways of saying that one has mechanically operated on inputs to obtain outputs. "Figure it out." "Work it out." "Grind through it."}  
He seems to be claiming that the words "learning" are missing from the English language while using using the colloquial equivalent "figure it out" as a counter example? (Karl Popper would not put up with woolly thinking.)

AGC then complains that we don't account the time spent accounting, but as a programmer he should see the obvious infinite recursion trap that he is asking for. [Time spent working; Time spent accounting for time worked; Time spent account for time spent account for time worked; ... ∞ ]

" paradigm is a coherent set of implicit assumptions you don't realise you hold" Nope it is a typical example or pattern of something; a pattern or model. AGC needs to spuriously add "you don't realise you hold" to support his hypothesis. A paradigm isn't Truth (tm) and those that use it HAVE to be aware of that, so if anything its the opposite of "don't realise". 

" appears to resolve most of the deep philosophical problems of modern physics." ok, here AGC goes full humble-brag clut-leader level nuts. Remember that this implies, "I've discovered a Truth (tm) that ALL MODERN PHYSICISTS have MISSED!"  
AGC concludes "Boom" with: his "proof" of M0 with a quest for the reader to another of his works, (r2:GhostNot) as The Final Truth (tm) that PROVES M0, "credibility"? Nice! I guess the margin wasn't big enough even for a Fermat joke?

# "Clamp" objections: {full on "invasion of the body snatchers" delusional - but that's what they want you to think!}

# "Disagreements with Existing Understanding" {degenerate blathering and ranting}

In "People with ADHD live in a dream world." we get our first use of the "us" label which is: Immunes  
In the next section, "People with ADHD cannot keep calm." all pretence at a scientific discord are dropped for our first slur of the other, "Planet of the Dopes".  
Then in "The Missing Faculties" AGC makes the leap from social to cosmological. (Quite a leap of faith! But how else is he going to correct the mistake that thousands of Top Men (tm) in physics have missed?) He bounces from "all hydrogen atoms are the same" to "all tornadoes are the same" which is ludicrous. His conclusion is "immunes" are autodidactic. M0 can't teach themselves or be objective because they lack:

Self Remembering; Pattern Discovery; Self Extension; Pattern Recognition; Meaning Based Thinking; Feedback and Gain Control; 

Immunes have "The Monitor" (AGC's term for shame/temerity.) M0's are shameless and, (unironically) immune to feeling bad about their mistakes.

"Feedback and Gain Control": "Therefore despite being in a massive minority in modern societies, low dopamine people have healthy brains and are normal, and everyone else has been made unwell by the M0 parasitisation of their society." So AGC has identified the only species to have majority-parasitic-infection as his own? Is there any other parasite that more than half of the populate have? human papillomavirus! So M0 IS an actual virus that we can test for!!! Yay.... (except some introverts also have HPV. Drat! I was so close to proving AGC right.)

The "Conclusions" has a "fite me" worded as, "If the hypothesis is false, it can be proved so." which is itself false. When part of the hypothesis is flawed the entirety of it is false. THE irony (tm) is that the r1:M0 "paper" tries to warn us of a mind-virus while it is one. One that I can no more refute to an Immune than I could convince a person of religious faith that their god is imaginary.

"Early Onset Parkinsonism" [sic.] another sudo-medical conjecture. (The only person that I knew with early onset Parkinsonism [sic.] lived the life of a free-thinking hippy mathematician that never had a job that he took seriously in his life. [http://www.martinhwatson.co.uk/robert_reid.html])

By the time he reaches "The Ethics of M0" he is so convinced of his idea, (despite earlier acknowledging that Immunes as a minority) that he is considering how to Ethically banish, (without chasing them with pitchforks) the last few "Dopes".  
He then unironically in "Architecture and Consumer Goods" derides the type of people who plan for improbable situations.

In "No More Mr. Nice Guy?" he appeals to the, "won't someone think of the children" ... of these "infected" people.  
"all surpluses natural immunes create will be absorbed at the top of the cycle. The more they create the worse the fall their colleagues will eventually suffer." um, ok calm down buddy, (we don't need a Nuremberg rally today.)

"all of which should ring bells" oh yup, bells are ringing alright buddy. How far out at the men with white coats?  
" the enriched naturally immune minority of children" oh he managed to slip in Indigo Children as well! 

 

<NTS> Just as Daniel Tammet is at a useful and function location on the Asperger-Autism spectrum, Allan G. Carter is drifting off into useless/dangerous area on the elite-Hacker, paranoid-delusional graph. AGC's creativity has constructed a narrative to explain a collection of his observations. Sadly all AGC has done is re-invent phlogiston. Alan's description of his "other" references "self-confidence and self-absorption" which further highlights that he has successfully identified extroverted (men) as his enemy. AGC's use of dopamine as an explanation reminds me of a newage (bullshirt) explanation of the power of crystals and magnets that included Ångström's but described Ångström's as a material and was unaware that an Ångström is just 0.0000001mm (so the bullshirt missed me by about 2e+10 Ångström's ). In "Boom" we meet our first "The answer" Truth (tm) certainty. (The second and final indulgence in Truth (tm) is in the "Meaning Based Thinking" 

Again in "Boom" "They seem to be convinced that it is the questioner that is the imbecile" we get a clear sense that AGC'c inability to express some of his personal "insights" in a clear and coherent form, (exhibits r1.A & r2.A: M0/GhostNot) have left him feeling frustrated. Rather than identifying the fault as his own he falls back on the classic teenage, "you're stupid and don't understand me!{door slam}"  
AGC is clearly Meyer-Brigs: ISTJ and is probably intelligent enough to know that the M-B test is astrological-hokum. 

The parallels drawn with "George Gurdjieff" are correlative because both "works" are sudo-scientific bunkum. (AGC calls George Gurdjieff's stuff "mystical" and highlights similarities with his own work without a hint of self-awareness. {My M0 Truth (tm) is just like this voodoo-newage bullshirt over there! see how True (tm) my stuff must be? }

 

AGC is a mentally wounded version of Ophiel, (author of "Art and Practice of Astral Projection").

</NTS>

<Q> Did Alan ever date a female Nurse? </Q>  
<Q> What psychiatric facility is he going to retire into?</Q>  
<Q> Will we get the schadenfreuder of Alan contracting Parkinson's ?</Q>  
<errata>"Derby and Joan" should be "Darby and Joan" noun: a devoted couple</errata>  
<errata>As the r1:M0 piece progresses the grammatical and typographic errors increase to match the crescendo of insanity "which is their underlying tendancy anyway." " in in "c/errata>

 

https://jsfiddle.net/22qnkzqu/6 << bookmarklet to show the neurosis that is AGC's "work".

 

r1:M0 is clearly the result of a talented programmer that has faced frustration and the feeling of erosion to his personal sense of self-worth. This "Picture" elucidates a man that has been on the receiving end of managers who have had to try to politely tell him to stick to his job and "no we aren't going to have a meeting to set meeting lengths and update time cards - because you should be teaching how to build a GUI and not trying to set office policy." (and some of them will have not had time to gently hand-hold him or they simply were as bad at explaining the reality of his situation to him as he clearly is.)

 

[0] "The Reciprocality Group" is a terrible name. The Reciprocity Group would have been better.  
[1] Such as being "infected" with M0  
[2] https://youtu.be/Ptokjgt2j3Y  
[3] http://scicurious.scientopia.org/2010/08/26/back-to-basics-4-dopamine/  
[4] https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/women-who-stray/201701/no-dopamine-is-not-addictive [pop-sci article with some good ref']


	2. r2_GhostNot_review

**Summary for the Chapter:**

> The completion of the decent into insanity

**Notes for the Chapter:**

> Key:  
> {this is a translation of the authors thoughts as guessed by the reviewer}  
> [this is an observation about AGC]
> 
> "immunes":"Super special manic pixie dream people" i.e. the author(s) of r1:M0 and r2:GhostNot  
> M0:"extroverts and mean people that did not agree to my poorly explained ideas in meetings"  
> "the Ghost Not":"pragmatism"  
> "Bill.*Tolman":"Seekers with a false guide to the forest of ignorance, (or 'a Bunch of nutters') "  
> "Ghost Not polluted":"pragmatic"  
> "the Ghost Not inspired":"pragmatic"  
> "George Gurdjieff":"Fiction writer that totally found some secret eastern wisdom and is hiding the proof that I am RIGHT!"  
> "narratisation" = thinking  
> "Dyadics" = "people that haven't studied as much as AGC on his chosen specialised subject" i.e. if you can't code u r zero
> 
>   
> https://78.media.tumblr.com/b94d8db818e83521454d9627be0834fe/tumblr_p00zhiN5Gx1wrbzq4o1_250.gif  
> 

## # r2:GhostNot review of text and of the author.

# "Introduction"  
paragraph 1 {sometimes people don't follow my reasoning, so they must be broken} it can't possibly be that AGC sucks at interpersonal relationships? (Or explanation; or solid ideas.)

Artists don't spot implicit patterns. Art is anything that we define as art, but if you want to analyse implicit truth and paters than it would be better to view art as combining existing things to create something new that can be used by the patron/viewer to experience/consider/improve their human condition.  
[irony: " trying to achieve clarity without being clear" ]  
Yay! AGC falls back on the incompleteness theorem to conclude that art is crap. (He is correct, but not for the reasons that he states which is that Artists keep the AGC wisdom out using a "buffer zone".)

Scientists: {Their methods are too orthodox to be acceptable, so I'll dismiss them as closed minded analysers of the "unnameable" }

Alchemists: {This section suggests an ignorance of the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_induction covered by everyone from Hume to Popper. Just 6 lines into the Introduction the implicit idea of The Truth (tm) with, "They come to see on all the levels and into all the worlds." <Q> does AGC consider all "Immunes" [0] Alchemists or is that affirmative backward? </Q> From the "They never forget." I am comfortable with the conjecture that all Alchemists must be "Immunes". } 

{Next line AGC crowns himself an Alchemist: "This is an alchemical paper." (I guess he has never forgotten anything ;-) ... except to proof read r1:M0. Two paragraphs after the "Alchemist" we have the first of 9 uses of the word importan(t,ce) that help to clarify the author's emphatic mindset in regards to their own work.}

# "Seeing Like An Artist"  
Here we see that AGC's understanding of art stops at the impressionists, (and possibly starts). His explanation is not sufficient for abstract art or contemporary art, (admittedly most contemporary are is created by con-"artists". )

AGC lauds van Gogh's ability to "spot something worth conveying". Even if AGC does not realise it, he is commenting on his own "revelations" and accidentally highlighting two points. 

1\. Are r1:M0 and r2:GhostNot "worth conveying" ? (I don't believe so.)  
2\. Did van Gogh try to convey anything? (I think not: van G' was an artists (in the normal sense of the word) and wanted (or needed) to create art.) For van Gogh, (at best) the medium is the message. He churned out, (on average) 90 paintings a year for 10 years - almost 2 a week! - and then died, (possibly at his own hand) in a field. His "great work" was painted while in an asylum in Saint-Remy-de-Provence, France. He suffered from chronic temporal lobe epilepsy, so he probably didn't have enough time to deliberately craft the "meaning" attributed by AGC - but that's the point of van Gogh's art: (like all good art) the viewer brings the insight; the art is merely the catalyst.

# Conventional Perception  
{This part starts out with more wishy-washy sudo-medical "observations" about how acquired subconscious processes filter perception in the minds of "Most people" but not "artists" (or AGC). This is the sort of error that I'd expect from a 1st year philosophy student when they read René Descartes and imagine him sitting down exactly as he describes in Discourse on the Method and spontaneously concluding ' je pense, donc je suis'. [If AGC read, understood and internalised "Discourse on the Method" he might realise how flimsy his conclusion and how horrendous his prose.] 

Then AGC moves on to try to use Leibnizian Monads as terms. [ As with quantum mechanics, if you think that you understand Leibniz's Monads then you don't! Leibniz is one of the rare geniuses that isn't hard to understand because there was any flaw in his ability to communicate - he wrote an entire library of letters to the wisest people of his world - but because he vigorously attacked the frontier of understanding. To this day we use the system of notation invented by Leibniz for calculus BECAUSE it is so clear! ]  
[irony: "Self delusion is a bad idea at the best of times" ]  
{When he says, "only those who are afraid to move need fear being squashed." I really really want a cartoon safe/piano to land on him.}  
"conventional perception is lossy." All sensory perception is lossy. One neurologist estimated that if 22k pieces of data arrive at the brain each second between 20k and 21.99999k are discarded, (depending on the "brain wave" state - even AGC's brain.)

" stars really are different colours although it is surprising how few people realise this " I've known this since at least 8 years of age. I think that the people that AGC has met and asked either are not interested or grew up in a city where most starts look white due to light pollution. I didn't "discover" this due to any great ability; I had the eye-sight of a child and grew up in the countryside where the night sky was clear enough to see the colours. Ever since I started wearing glasses the stars have mostly looked white because I am less able to discern colours of such distant objects, (also I tend to spend more time in cities and more time inside and less time wishing on stars like a lonely introvert that feels slighted, undervalued and driven to document my (frankly arrogant) "revelations".)  
"each star has a huge umbra" {AGC continues to use words incorrectly: umbra means shadow. I think he means diffusion circle.}

# "Sign Flipping"  
Here AGC continues to use an artist, (like van Gogh) to argue for purity of perception, (which is ironic because van Gogh's brain was such an electrical storm of epilepsy that what he painted might have been exactly what he saw: a distorted wavy swirl of migraine induced colours.  
)  
After some useless conjecture of "most people's" perception process AGC ropes in Sigmund Freud, (appeal to authority), and AGC attributes the founded psychoanalysis to Freud, (even though almost all of his conclusions have been found to be as flawed as those of AGC and it is possible that Freud single-handedly retarded hypnosis research by 50 years.)

AGC seems to be arguing that an artists head is somehow magically equivalent to a camera-obscura; that light enters their eye and projects the image of reality directly into their understanding. This is as fanciful as "viewing the last image from a dead-man's eye by projecting light out through the retina."

 

# "The Asymmetrical Universe"  
[ At this point AGC is building on the quick-sand of his own delusional mistakes. He thinks that he is building up, but he is sinking faster than construction.]  
Here AGC's assertion of an asymmetrical universe using physical objects and highlights the limit of his thinking with tangible objects. Two easy counter arguments are: 

1\. If I have 10 apple and you have 10 cups of oats, we can trade 5 of each and even though the quantity of the material does not change the situation has a net improvement for both of us with zero detriment to either of us. (Nash had the same lack of humanity in his Nash equilibrium.) Where did the suffering go? Where did the satisfaction come from? (Are they symmetrical?)  
2\. If I spend time at a football match with 5 friends is it half as enjoyable, (or twice as enjoyable) than if I attended the event with 10 friends?

AGC tries to conclude that the universe is asymmetrical due to its existence. For him to be satisfied that it is symmetrical he would require that I provide an anti-universe to show him the hole out-of-which this universe was dug. In 1966 Hironari Miyazawa proposed super-symmetry to advance our understanding of this universe. (Miuazawa was largely ignored, but in 1977 it was (re-)proposed to solve, amongst other things, the hierarchy problem.)  
[another swing-n-a-miss for AGC - this time rather than a flimsy understanding of brain chemistry he does the same with physics.]

# "The Primary Algebra"

[ I haven't read "The Laws of Form" by George Spencer-Brown, but I conjecture that GS-B would think that AGC's writing is unrelated. Referencing GS-B is a bad idea as his attempt to use his own LoF to prove the Four Colour Theorem failed.]

Using a text that is largely rejected by any serious logician further places AGC's work as hanging on the fringe of a fringe.  
That is why AGC can convince himself that " when a person perceives conventionally " their perception is run through a NOT logic filter?

# "The OR Operation"  
[When I saw this title, having read "The Asymmetrical Universe" I guessed that he would use the asymmetry of the OR truth-table to support his conjecture. (Nice Texas-sharp-shooting.) As a computer programmer it would make more sense to use the XOR gate as you can construct an entire computer from that... but the XOR truth table is symmetrical, which would not support his ~~delusions~~ "Truth (tm)".]

He miss understands René Magritte intent of "Ceci n'est pas une pipe." (Magritte was saying that a representation is not the object that it represents. Then again Margritte was from the Surrealism school, so he could have just been messing with his audience.)

This section AGC tries to conclude that our understanding of logic is wrong because we use NOR and NAND gates rather than OR and AND gates!? That is as stupid as saying evolution is wrong because if it was true we would have evolved to breath nitrogen rather than oxygen because most of the atmosphere is nitrogen! [Wake up sheeple! :-s ]

# "The XOR Operation"  
[ I guess he is off on a tangent and has to to "disprove" the symmetry of XOR - this should be fun.]  
"We are now complicated enough that the usual symmetry of the universe has emerged. But this just means the Ghost Not is more deeply hidden." What? XOR isn't complicated, but it does seem to have some magical power to make you paranoid. (Where do you propose that the "Ghost Not" is hiding this time? In the English language! « Nice try - your idea is merde in any language »

AGC tries to use  
(a OR b) AND (NOT(a AND b)) === (a OR b) AND ((NOT a) OR (NOT b))

(combined with his understanding of LoF to "prove" that his GhostNot (that was previously squatting in the OR truth table) is also in English grammar because boolean operators can be rearranged into a different form and be functionally equivalent.  
How would ( (a && (NOT b ) ) || ( NOT a ) && b ) && ( ( NOT a ) || ( NOT b ) ) fit into this cosmology?

 

# "The Intersect Problem"  
Here AGC create a straw-man in the form:  
" Some A are B; Some B are C" and then objects to "Are there any C that are A" being undefined WHEN HE FAILED TO DEFINE IT!  
It IS undefined because both boolean cases MAY be correct depending on how you fully define the case. This is right after he informs us "the universe has a real state which is self-consistent". We limit the variables in a logical affirmative so that we can focus on the relevant data in the simplified "model of the universe". If you are going to leave data out of your affirmatives you can't then complain that data is missing. (As he seems to be a fan of Monty Python he should know: "Universal affirmatives can only be partially converted!").  
But this does not prevent AGC redefining the rules of Venn diagrams to rescue his faulty logic.  
After all that pointless boolean twaddle his only objection is the use of the word "undefined" when he would prefer "possibly". The problem with this is that we are NEVER going to have additional information outside of the "universe" of his affirmatives, so we can't gain or create information and worse the use of "possibly" implies that there is more information that might be gleamed, (which is false.)

 

# "The Gameshow Problem"  
This is known as "The Monty Hall Problem" to mathematicians ever since Steve Selvin named it that in 1975. ( There is also a Anti-Monty Hall Problem where the answer is to stick to your guns [1]. As both possibilities exist, (depending on your premise) Q.E.D. the universe must be symmetrical! [ See infallible logic! :-s ] )  
{ We might have a glimpse of AGC's frustrations with " risk assessments " }

# "Beysian Statistics"  
{People suck at logic. Mum I hate ppl.}

# "Entropy"  
Anecdotal story of engineering progress used to "prove" AGC's conclusion in "The Intersect Problem". Falsified by even greater increases in efficiency through later computer modelling of a turbine that is shaped like a whale's pectoral fin.

# "Inclusive and Exclusive Thinking"

[ AGC's "Ghost Not" is his reaction to the inertia that he felt against his proposals, "How can anyone reject my ideas when I understand them so clearly?" This is one tiny step away from, "I can't get anything done because the lizard people are always against me!" In this section AGC's mask drops. ] AGC states that the Ghost Not creates an "insuperable barrier to learning". If "most people" have this infection how is it that schools still exist when "most people" are unable to learn?

 

# "Human Relationships" {I'm going to call it right now - AGC got dumped by his Nurse GF}

Laingian Knots? Why quote the amateur poetry of a psychiatrist? [ appeal to authority?] If you want to explain  
"Organisational discourse is fraught with circular reasoning, double binds, and vicious circles - in effect, Dances With Words. Some are pas de deux, some solos (a la barre?) danced before a mirror. Some are solos danced in dyads, triads, or groups. Many are pure improvisation." Then just do that. [ I imagine that the Double Bind that AGC faced most often was, "Shut-up or you're fired!" ]

# "Showing or Pretending?"  
The accusations are, at this point, wildly out of control: "Dyadics believe that their narratisation is real, and there is no such thing as objective reality." [Remember from the first line of r2:GhostNot " most people " are dyadics. ] So most people are incredulous of objective reality? I think Samuel Johnson would have stoned AGC to death and THAT is why AGC invented his Ghost Not cult; to deal with pragmatic people.

This section reeks of a [whining difficult impractical know-it-all] person with a persecution complex.  
[irony: "The keyword is denial" ]

# "Utilising Conventional Perception"  
[ More rationalising for why AGC has been "persecuted" ]

# "Existential Neurosis"  
{stupid lazy people! AGC is surrounded by us!}

# "The Ghost Not in M0"  
In this section AGC, (with zero evidence) seems certain that he knows the neurochemistry of ALL HUMANS before (his imagined) M0 infection.  
(Then he just becomes patronising of subsistence farmers; I wonder what he would make of Srinivasa Ramanujan?)  
[more irony: "dyadics deny the universe's richness and elegance " when AGC is trying to eradicate all football-match attending extroverts]

If M0 and Ghost Not existed all "infected" societies would spiral into total madness as the internal representation of reality of the three groups with M0 OR GhostNot slid further away from objective reality, driven by their reaction to the assertions of people from the other three categories.

# "The Observer in Physics"

[ more misunderstanding of physics (or possibly biology, or both) Photons do not "bind" the human eye. ] Despite this AGC is going to fix physics... in later "papers". [ I can hardly wait to see his inability to comprehend "the observer" in physics. ]

# "The Observer in Sociology"  
Appeal to authority (Malcolm X) AND https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/black-or-white 

# "The Ghost Not and Existentialism"  
[ It could just be fatigue from slogging through this crap, but I can't make any logical sense from this section.]  
# "The Ghost Not and the Laws of Form"  
"It is possible that I've taken a different philosophical approach" ooh ooh ooh! is this a moment of clarity? It just ends with aspiration and no conclusion.

[To avoid irony, my conclusion is that AGC is intelligent and introverted. Somewhere on the autism spectrum, though not far from mild Asperger's. His sens of self-worth is inflated and has sustained damage from both extroverts inviting him to socialise and from pragmatic managers that have had to find ways to extract useful work from an overly detail focused individual. AGC's victim mentality does not invalidate his conclusions; his lack of research or factual data does that. If we discard the anecdotal and his conjectures we end up with nothing. This digital diatribe document does not even merit retention as an example for those studying mild neurosis as it is produced by every slightly-above middling introverted technician with a blog. ]

##############################

 

[0] Immunes is the label for the "us" group in AGC's cult [r1:M0 "Vector" p4L1w7]. Though they seem to have become "monadics" in r2:GhostNot (is this a promotion within the cult?)  


[1] If we have 5 doors with a prize behind one, and you pick 3 doors; I open two of your failed choices and one of the unselected false doors, (I know where the prize is) and invite you to chose to stick with your door or switch to the last remaining door. 

We can see in: https://web.archive.org/web/20071101024116/http://www.reciprocality.org/thirdage/ that AGC goes full L. Ron Hubbard.

Reading the comment section of https://news.slashdot.org/story/99/10/26/137207/beyond-the-programmers-stone  
we can see an example that "You can fool some of the people something something, but you can't fool all of the people all of the time."

https://www.datapacrat.com/Opinion/Reciprocality/r1/howto.html suggests that he dated a girl that studied Medicine in 1993 and she switched to Mechanical Engineering in 1994! (This is probably where his exposure to second-hand and incomplete medical studies assisted with his flawed brain-chemistry conclusions.)

https://www.datapacrat.com/Opinion/Reciprocality/r1/howto.html#How To Cure CFIDS (ME)  
concludes with classic introvert defence: 'N.B. The existance [sic.] of mapper diseases doesn't make packers "better" than mappers.'  
i.e. Extroverts might have more fun and be more interesting and successful, but they are stupid and like football.  
howto.html also shows that he has fallen into the common trap, (for those that discover it) of feeling super-human when they learn that they can consciously increase their heart-rate. [I discovered this at the same time that I learnt that I could dampen loud sounds by holding my breath and pressurising my sinuses, at the age of 8, (because I didn't like the noise inside of a train as it passed through a tunnel.) AGC should have gone and study with Wim Hoff; join a fun existing cult rather starting your own angry sad cult.]

**Notes for the Chapter:**

> [A bookmarklet to decode much of r1:M0 and r2:GhostNot](https://jsfiddle.net/22qnkzqu/6)


End file.
